道路交通安全畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯

1、<p>　　視覺(jué)零——道路交通安全的一項(xiàng)實(shí)施政策</p><p><b>　　羅杰約翰遜</b></p><p>　　道路安全司，瑞典公路管理局，羅達(dá)沃根1，78187 Borlange，瑞典</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：視覺(jué)零、道路安全、實(shí)施</p><p><b>　　摘要：</b&

2、gt;</p><p>　　本文的范疇是一個(gè)提綱，一般來(lái)說(shuō)，道路安全理念本來(lái)就存在于現(xiàn)在道路和道路設(shè)計(jì)中。追蹤這種理念的起源，提出了新的街道道路的設(shè)計(jì)原則有人會(huì)爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，在目前的道路設(shè)計(jì)理念的缺陷。是主要的原因全球道路安全危機(jī)，清楚表明其人造的性質(zhì)。一個(gè)由決策過(guò)程所構(gòu)成的簡(jiǎn)短的描述，導(dǎo)致零視覺(jué)在1997年作為瑞典交通安全政策確立。</p><p>　　通過(guò)對(duì)問(wèn)題的分析，為尋求解決之道提出建議

3、。這些解決方案基于視覺(jué)零中的一些原則。這些措施包括一個(gè)用于創(chuàng)建錯(cuò)誤容忍的道路系統(tǒng)的新的基本機(jī)制，和道路、街道新的設(shè)計(jì)原則。因此，傳統(tǒng)的“怪罪受害者”的質(zhì)疑和焦點(diǎn)放在了需要專業(yè)人士基于這些新的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)所采取的行動(dòng)。在過(guò)去10年在瑞典的死亡人數(shù)已經(jīng)從大約550 /年下降到450 /年。重新設(shè)計(jì)的道路中央分隔帶已經(jīng)減少了80％在死亡。街道以30公里/小時(shí)的設(shè)計(jì)速度顯示出類似的結(jié)果。這表明，從視覺(jué)零衍生出來(lái)的策略是有效的，但還沒(méi)有大規(guī)模實(shí)施。<

4、;/p><p><b>　　1、過(guò)程</b></p><p>　　自1993年，在瑞典瑞典公路管理局（SRA）的有一個(gè)整體的責(zé)任道路交通安全。在1996年，這一責(zé)任被政府進(jìn)一步澄清。瑞典已有非常小的部委（人員數(shù)）。因此，像SRA的管理部門經(jīng)常有半政治任務(wù)，如發(fā)展政策和目標(biāo)。政策決定、長(zhǎng)期目標(biāo)和總體預(yù)算是由政府或議會(huì)做出的，而發(fā)展是在管理部門做出的。</p>

5、<p>　　繼1994年秋季瑞典有了一個(gè)新選舉的交通部長(zhǎng)。交通部長(zhǎng)宣布，安全將是她的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)之一。部長(zhǎng)的工作人員就如何使部長(zhǎng)能夠做出交通安全優(yōu)先課題和SRA之間展開(kāi)對(duì)話。在1994年春天，SRA和主要利益相關(guān)者一起對(duì)1994-2000年的行車安全提出了一項(xiàng)短期方案。它不僅有和先前工作的連續(xù)性，而且更加強(qiáng)調(diào)關(guān)鍵行動(dòng)和重視成果之間的協(xié)作。這個(gè)方案后，直接推動(dòng)SRA開(kāi)始制定交通安全長(zhǎng)期戰(zhàn)略的基本思路。它已經(jīng)被確認(rèn)為當(dāng)代一些交通安全問(wèn)

6、題的范例（約翰遜，1991）。部分問(wèn)題的原因是許多措施缺乏預(yù)期的效益，這被Gerald Wilde等承認(rèn)（2001年，在Wilde中最好的描述）。詳細(xì)概述可以在經(jīng)合組織（1990）中找到。</p><p>　　即使不是所有的崩潰或沖突是可以避免的，非常嚴(yán)重受傷可以在原則上是可以避免的，新的安全模式——視覺(jué)零是建立在這一基本思想上的?；舅枷胧墙㈩A(yù)測(cè)碰撞事故，將健康損失控制在容忍范圍以內(nèi)的安全體系。</p&

7、gt;<p>　　部長(zhǎng)和她的工作人員認(rèn)識(shí)到在視覺(jué)零的想法和政治背景下工作是可能，迅速采用了這一基本思路，制定了文本（翻譯Belin等，1997），1997年在議會(huì)上提出這一思路，它被所有的政黨接受（Tingvall，1998年）。從那時(shí)起議會(huì)多次在不同場(chǎng)合重復(fù)這一思路。“視覺(jué)零”的概念在其他很多領(lǐng)域已經(jīng)成為了“高度的政治野心”的代名詞。2008年，政府對(duì)視覺(jué)零做了一個(gè)自殺決定。</p><p>　　

8、1995年，關(guān)于視覺(jué)零的許多政治辯論和在1997年議會(huì)的決策都集中在這樣的一個(gè)問(wèn)題“死亡人數(shù)是多少，我們才能接受？當(dāng)時(shí)，瑞典大約有500人死于交通事故中。比較與其他運(yùn)輸方式情況下作出安全水平，（顯然是零死亡率的目標(biāo)），職業(yè)安全（每年約50人死亡），電力（每年約5人死亡）。從這個(gè)政治分析得出的結(jié)論是零死亡率的目標(biāo)是唯一合理的道路交通目標(biāo)。在同一時(shí)期，SRA及其網(wǎng)路的工作集中在尋找從根本上降低道路交通死亡風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的策略。通常旨在減少一個(gè)死亡風(fēng)險(xiǎn)

9、的因素10。下面是個(gè)例子。</p><p><b>　　2、視覺(jué)零</b></p><p>　　1997年，瑞典議會(huì)通過(guò)了一項(xiàng)關(guān)于交通安全條例草案其中有人指出：</p><p>　　“視覺(jué)零意味著最終沒(méi)有人在道路交通系統(tǒng)被殺死或嚴(yán)重受傷。”</p><p>　　視覺(jué)零點(diǎn)并不意味著導(dǎo)致個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)損失輕微損失和人身受到輕微傷害

10、的事故必須被消除。上述問(wèn)題并不認(rèn)為是道路交通安全方面的一個(gè)重要的因素，即使他們能為國(guó)家的費(fèi)用，縣議會(huì)，市和個(gè)人帶來(lái)巨大收益。相反，重點(diǎn)應(yīng)放在，導(dǎo)致一人被殺害或嚴(yán)重受傷的這些事件。視覺(jué)零還提出了一種道德的方法解決來(lái)與公路交通有關(guān)的健康問(wèn)題：</p><p>　　“當(dāng)在道路交通系統(tǒng)中運(yùn)行時(shí)，人身被致死或受到嚴(yán)重傷害在道德上是不能接受的。</p><p>　　視覺(jué)零被認(rèn)為是道路交通系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)和運(yùn)作

11、的一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期目標(biāo)。重要的是實(shí)現(xiàn)零的視覺(jué)做法將改變對(duì)道路交通的安全的工作目標(biāo)；即從減少交通事故傷亡的數(shù)量方面制定一個(gè)明確的目標(biāo)：消除交通事故所造成的長(zhǎng)期健康損害的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這些新的方法使我們從“我們能做些什么？”向“我們必須做些什么？”轉(zhuǎn)變。</p><p>　　視覺(jué)零對(duì)道路交通安全系統(tǒng)中的道路交通安全作出了新的假定劃分，道路交通安全責(zé)任應(yīng)遵循以下底線：</p><p>　　該系統(tǒng)的設(shè)計(jì)者總是對(duì)道

12、路安全系統(tǒng)的設(shè)計(jì)、運(yùn)作和使用負(fù)最終責(zé)任，從而對(duì)整個(gè)系統(tǒng)的安全水平負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p>　　道路使用者使用的責(zé)任是使用道路交通系統(tǒng)時(shí)，要按照設(shè)計(jì)師所確定的規(guī)則。</p><p>　　如果道路使用者不遵守這些規(guī)則而缺乏知識(shí)，接受或能力，或者如果傷害確實(shí)發(fā)生，系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)者必須采取必要的進(jìn)一步措施，消除人被殺害和受重傷。</p><p>　　采用視覺(jué)零方法意味著注重人的生命

13、和健康是設(shè)計(jì)和運(yùn)作的道路交通系統(tǒng)絕對(duì)的要求。這意味著道路交通安全問(wèn)題與環(huán)境問(wèn)題相似，必須明確結(jié)合影響道路交通安全系統(tǒng)中安全運(yùn)行的所有進(jìn)程。基于以下幾點(diǎn)：</p><p>　　“人體能夠承受的，不能是自身致死和重傷的暴力水平應(yīng)當(dāng)是道路運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)的基本參數(shù)?！?lt;/p><p>　　基于這個(gè)原則，能夠發(fā)展道路安全的未來(lái)社會(huì)：通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)和建造的道路，改良車輛和提高運(yùn)輸服務(wù)，使人們受到的暴力水平不超過(guò)人

14、體承受范圍；這些都是通過(guò)不同的支持系統(tǒng)，如有效的貢獻(xiàn)規(guī)章制度，教育，信息，監(jiān)測(cè)，救援服務(wù)，護(hù)理和康復(fù)。以此為基礎(chǔ)，將產(chǎn)生一種積極的需求：尋找新的和有效的解決方案，能夠推動(dòng)公路運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)的建設(shè)重點(diǎn)和要求以及先決條件都在人的需要上。</p><p>　　“這是事實(shí)，有95％的事故或碰撞是因?yàn)槿祟惖腻e(cuò)誤，但根據(jù)視覺(jué)零理念，95％的解決方案在改變道路，街道或車輛?！毕旅媸菐讉€(gè)例子：</p><p>

15、　?。?）在瑞典司機(jī)曾經(jīng)有92％的安全帶佩戴率。雖然不錯(cuò)，但還是不夠好。EuroNCaP幾年前建立了一個(gè)對(duì)安全帶提醒協(xié)議，結(jié)果2005年出售的70%的新車都有安全帶提醒裝置。這些車的司機(jī)安全帶佩戴率為99％。因此，系安全帶的問(wèn)題會(huì)逐漸以非常低的成本的方式得到解決。</p><p>　?。?）酒精：酒后駕車在世界各地都是一個(gè)很大的問(wèn)題，盡管在嚴(yán)格的立法和執(zhí)法下，有些改善。證明交通運(yùn)輸?shù)陌踩允紫纫獫M足交通運(yùn)輸專業(yè)人

16、士提出的“證明清醒”的要求。在瑞典約有50％學(xué)校巴士有酒精聯(lián)動(dòng)鎖（一裝置檢查驅(qū)動(dòng)程序是否清醒）。新一代的酒精鎖將要上市（在歐美至少有4個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手），它將有更低的價(jià)格和更高的性能。</p><p>　　通過(guò)這種方式，一輛車，它提醒你使用安全帶，并檢查你的呼吸酒精或檢查你的表現(xiàn)，并幫助你成為一個(gè)更好，更安全駕駛的司機(jī)。不同方面的視覺(jué)零的理念能在這里找到（Tingvall等，1996年， 1997年；Tingvall，

17、1998年，2007年；Belin等人，1997年）。</p><p>　　3、傳統(tǒng)的道路設(shè)計(jì)理念</p><p>　　傳統(tǒng)的道路交通安全導(dǎo)向是以“事故”為出發(fā)點(diǎn)。事故統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)通常基于警方報(bào)告，而報(bào)告是依據(jù)警方已知的事故所制作的。這些統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)已被世界各地的道路部門用于描述和分析與道路安全問(wèn)題相關(guān)的道路及道路設(shè)計(jì)問(wèn)題。重要的是要注意的交通事故和（差）的道路安全不是相同含義。很多事故可能是一種（

18、差）的安全指標(biāo)，但如果事故沒(méi)有造成人身傷害，則他們（這些事故）不是。道路安全是一個(gè)有關(guān)人身健康問(wèn)題。如果碰撞或交通事故沒(méi)有人身傷害就不是交通安全問(wèn)題，只是經(jīng)濟(jì)損失問(wèn)題。但在本文中提到另一種安全理念，即從選擇“事故”的角度，最大限度的減少事故，降低不必要的人身傷害。正如所有現(xiàn)代交通安全問(wèn)題都定義為健康問(wèn)題（健康損失），而從交通事故角度都失去了這個(gè)目的。</p><p>　　一般事故分析表明90-95％的事故由道路使

19、用者所造成的。社會(huì)對(duì)預(yù)防交通事故最基本的回應(yīng)是制定約束道路使用者行為的規(guī)章制度。交通立法的目的主要是為了簡(jiǎn)化對(duì)道路使用者的任務(wù)，使事故的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)較低。很多情況下這一工作是一目的。但是，如果把焦點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移到交通法規(guī)所減少的健康損失的效果上，該模式就不太清楚了。例如，在交通信號(hào)等和行人過(guò)路處，通常在安裝信號(hào)燈的地方碰撞事故較少，但多發(fā)生嚴(yán)重傷害。行人過(guò)路處通常沒(méi)有行人安全通過(guò)的方式，因?yàn)樗麄儥M穿馬路方便，但這給他們自身帶來(lái)了不安全。</p&g

20、t;<p>　　當(dāng)涉及到以公路和街道為主的安全設(shè)計(jì)總體戰(zhàn)略時(shí)是增加司機(jī)和車輛的空間。也就是說(shuō)，更廣泛的通道，更廣泛的道路，直路，大通道等。這背后的原因是直接的和符合邏輯的。如果司機(jī)駕車偏離道路，那么寬一點(diǎn)的路面有助于車輛回到原來(lái)道路，繼續(xù)前行。如果司機(jī)駕車在彎道處容易偏離車道，那么就將車道建的直一些，以避免交通事故的發(fā)生。這種方法在減少交通事故方面取得一些成功，即使對(duì)降低事故風(fēng)險(xiǎn)方面受到質(zhì)疑（Hauer，1999）。這種方

21、法只是創(chuàng)造了回避的空間，而在減少嚴(yán)重傷亡的方面沒(méi)有獲得成功。事實(shí)上，從所有的方便考慮，這一方法增加了死亡和對(duì)健康的損害。如果其他一切一樣的話，寬闊的道路上比有很多曲線的窄路上有更高的（事故）死亡率。原因很簡(jiǎn)單：最突出的效果是有更廣闊的運(yùn)行空間，就有更高的車速。這就意味著在車輛碰撞時(shí)有更大的動(dòng)能。在其他條件相同的情況下，更高的能量水平導(dǎo)致更多的健康損傷。車速增長(zhǎng)有兩個(gè)原因：一是道路管理者在寬闊的道路上的規(guī)定的車速上限值大，二是在直的道路上

22、，司機(jī)被告知這種道路安全等級(jí)高，致使司機(jī)在這些道路上更快的行車。</p><p>　　建造寬闊、筆直的道路和街道的這種安全理念是導(dǎo)致全球道路安全危機(jī)的主要原因之一。通過(guò)與后文中的視覺(jué)零理念的對(duì)比，得到在嚴(yán)重人身傷害或死亡方面的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)會(huì)增加，這是由十個(gè)因素中的一個(gè)或兩個(gè)引起的。沒(méi)有其他的設(shè)計(jì)參數(shù)有如此巨大的影響。例如，瑞典二線的公路，最高車速限速我110公里/小時(shí)。而在這些道路上有最嚴(yán)重的傷亡記錄，一人死亡，超過(guò)三人

23、受傷。相對(duì)于新中國(guó)公路產(chǎn)生的每年每公里公路上死亡超過(guò)一人來(lái)說(shuō)。瑞典鄉(xiāng)村公路和中國(guó)公路主要不同是：后者有大量的易受傷的道路使用者，只能采用像是采用拓寬道路和交通法規(guī)的方法使他們與機(jī)動(dòng)車分離。行人過(guò)路（圖1），提到瑞典道路一個(gè)例子表明道路使用中央分隔帶或邊緣分隔帶能夠減少死亡人數(shù)85%—90%。在上文提及的中國(guó)公路，至少在了原則上，重建能夠較少死亡人數(shù)髙達(dá)99%。</p><p>　　必須注意機(jī)動(dòng)車化及其對(duì)整個(gè)國(guó)家道

24、路安全的影響。瑞典機(jī)動(dòng)車大約有0.5輛/居民，而中國(guó)在開(kāi)始時(shí)機(jī)動(dòng)車為0.04輛/居民。世界銀行指出，當(dāng)國(guó)民生產(chǎn)總值/人均達(dá)到約8000美元，一個(gè)國(guó)家的道路死亡人數(shù)從原來(lái)的上升趨勢(shì)變?yōu)橄陆第厔?shì)（Kopits和Kropper，2003）?；谶@些數(shù)據(jù)，有這樣一種假說(shuō)：交通組成的變化，也就是說(shuō)，在這個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展階段，受保護(hù)/未受保護(hù)道路使用者的混合交通達(dá)到臨界限。也就是說(shuō)，分離車輛與未受保護(hù)道路使用者達(dá)到一定水平時(shí)，有最佳的道路安全的整體效果。

25、它還應(yīng)值得注意的是，這（大多數(shù)）社會(huì)的分離是自發(fā)的而不是設(shè)計(jì)的。還有這樣一個(gè)功能越來(lái)越多的人使用機(jī)動(dòng)車（車或公共汽車）和減少脆弱道路使用者數(shù)量，尤其是在農(nóng)村道路上。這在發(fā)展中國(guó)家是一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)，當(dāng)然，工程師在機(jī)動(dòng)化的早期階段的這種分離也是挑戰(zhàn)。</p><p>　　4、視覺(jué)零的設(shè)計(jì)原則</p><p>　　交通安全系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)的出發(fā)點(diǎn)從這樣的一個(gè)角度：人類所能忍受的生物力學(xué)方面的暴力。這種忍受能是

26、一個(gè)給定的因素—這不會(huì)在重大程度上的影響。例如，汽車以25—30公里/小時(shí)的車速撞擊行人，大部分被撞擊者能夠幸存。但是，如果汽車以50公里/小時(shí)車速撞擊行人，則大多數(shù)行人會(huì)死亡（圖2）。</p><p>　　鑒于道路安全設(shè)計(jì)在交通事故方面一般思路是增加駕駛員和車輛的空間，從視覺(jué)零角度相應(yīng)的策略是控制車輛沖突和碰撞時(shí)的動(dòng)能。就是這些動(dòng)能使道路使用者受到傷亡，而不是事故本身。通過(guò)控制碰撞時(shí)傳遞到人體的能量，一種錯(cuò)誤

27、的忍受能力將被放入交通系統(tǒng)中。事實(shí)上，錯(cuò)誤容忍能力觀點(diǎn)的背后目的是給駕駛員空間的傳統(tǒng)安全模式。有空間來(lái)進(jìn)行回避操作，避免發(fā)生事故，但問(wèn)題是沒(méi)有按照所計(jì)劃的方式生效。</p><p>　　控制車輛碰撞沖突時(shí)的動(dòng)能，可以被分解的關(guān)于道路和街道設(shè)計(jì)以下原則：“整合”和“分離”即通過(guò)整合兼容的交通要素和分離不兼容的交通要素。這是一些邊界值：</p><p>　　1、易受傷害的道路使用者不應(yīng)該接觸機(jī)

28、動(dòng)車時(shí)速超過(guò)30公里/小時(shí)的機(jī)動(dòng)車。</p><p>　　2、如果第1條不能滿足，則要將易受傷害的道路使用者和機(jī)動(dòng)車分離或減少車速到30公里/小時(shí)。</p><p>　　3、在轉(zhuǎn)彎超過(guò)90度路口，車輛內(nèi)成員不應(yīng)接觸車速超過(guò)50公里/小時(shí)的其他車輛。</p><p>　　4、如果第3條不能滿足，那么要是他們分離或減小角度或降低車速到50公里/小時(shí)。</p>

29、<p>　　5、車內(nèi)的人不應(yīng)該接觸迎面而來(lái)的車輛（其他車輛大約同等重量）速度超過(guò)70公里/小時(shí)或車速50公里/小時(shí)，如果迎面而來(lái)的車輛是相當(dāng)不同重量（圖3）。</p><p>　　6、如果第5條布不能滿足，那么應(yīng)該分離車輛或使車輛質(zhì)量平均或降低車速到70 (50) 公里/小時(shí)。</p><p>　　7、車內(nèi)的人不應(yīng)該接觸路邊，在車速超過(guò)70公里/小時(shí)或車速50公里/小時(shí)，路邊

30、有樹(shù)木或其他狹窄物體（圖4）。</p><p>　　8、如果第7條不能滿足，那么應(yīng)將車輛與路邊分離或降低車速到70 (50) 公里/小時(shí)。</p><p>　　圖1。中國(guó)的公路204，被認(rèn)為是安全的，特征是在該道路上每公里每年死亡超過(guò)一人。</p><p>　　撞擊速度（千米/小時(shí)）</p><p>　　圖2。撞擊速度和行人死亡概率的函數(shù)（A

31、nderson等人，1997）。</p><p>　　圖3。在瑞典，重新設(shè)計(jì)的有2+1條車道和中央分隔帶的鄉(xiāng)道，使死亡人數(shù)減少80–90%。</p><p>　　圖4。模擬車輛與樹(shù)的碰撞，這幅圖表示的是車輛以70千米/小時(shí)撞擊后的大概位置狀況。</p><p>　　Vision Zero – Implementing a policy for traffic saf

32、ety</p><p>　　Roger Johansson</p><p>　　Road Safety Division, Swedish Road Administration, Roda Vagen 1, 78187 Borlange, Sweden</p><p>　　Keywords: Vision Zero Road Safety Implementa

33、tion</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　The scope of this paper is to outline, in a general way, the safety philosophy inherent in present road- and street design, trace the origin of

34、 this philosophy, and to present the principles for a new design of streets and roads. It will be argued that deficiencies in the present road design philosophy are the main cause of the global road safety crisis, clearl

35、y indicating its man-made nature. A brief description is made of the decision process leading to the establishment of Vision Zero as Swed</p><p>　　Following an analysis of the problem, suggestions are made f

36、or finding solutions. The solutions are based on some of the principles in Vision Zero. They include a new basic mechanism for creating error-tolerance in the road system, and new design principles for road- and street d

37、esign. </p><p>　　The tradition of “blaming the victim” is hereby questioned and focus is put on the need for professionals to act based on these new standards. During the last 10 years the fatalities in Swed

38、en have dropped from approximately 550/year to 450/year. Roads redesigned with median barriers have an 80% reduction in fatalities. Streets with 30 km/h design speed show similar results. This indicates that measures der

39、ived from Vision Zero strategy are effective but that large scale implementation has not y</p><p>　　1. The process</p><p>　　The Swedish Road Administration (SRA) had an overall responsibility fo

40、r Road Traffic Safety in Sweden since 1993. This responsibility was further clarified by the Government in 1996. Sweden has very small Ministries (number of personnel). As a consequence Administrations like the SRA often

41、 have semi-political tasks like development of policies and targets. Decisions on policy, long term targets and overall budgets are made by the Government or the Parliament but development is made in the Admini</p>

42、<p>　　Following the elections in the autumn 1994 Sweden got a new Minister for Transportation. The Minister declared that traffic safety would be one of her priorities. A dialog was started between the Minister’s

43、Staff and the SRA on how the Minister could make traffic safety a prioritized subject.</p><p>　　In the spring of 1994 the SRA together with the major stakeholders for traffic safety had presented a short ter

44、m program for action for the years of 1994–2000. It had the character of continuing earlier work but with more emphasis on cooperation between key actors and focus on results. Directly after this program was launched the

45、 SRA started to develop some basic ideas for a long term strategy for traffic safety. It had been recognised for some time that the contemporary traffic safety paradigm </p><p>　　The new safety paradigm, Vis

46、ion Zero is built around the basic idea that even if not all crashes or collisions can be avoided, all severe injuries can, in principle, be avoided. The basic idea was to build a “safe system” where all predicted crashe

47、s and collisions had tolerable health losses. The Minister and her Staff recognised that it was possible to work with the ideas behind Vision Zero in a political setting and quickly adopted the basic ideas, developed a t

48、ext (translated in Belin et al.,</p><p>　　During the same time period SRA and its network concentrated work on developing strategies for radically lowering fatality risks in road traffic, typically aiming at

49、 reducing fatality risks with a factor 10. Examples follow later in this paper.</p><p>　　2. Vision Zero</p><p>　　In 1997 the Swedish Parliament passed a bill on Traffic Safety where it was state

50、d that:</p><p>　　“Vision Zero means that eventually no one will be killed or seriously injured within the road transport system.”</p><p>　　Vision Zero does not presume that all accidents that re

51、sult in personal property damage or in less serious injuries must be eliminated. These occurrences are not considered to be an essential element in the road traffic safety problem even if they can entail large costs for

52、the State, county councils, municipalities and individuals. Rather, focus shall be placed on those incidents that lead to a person being killed or seriously injured. Vision Zero also proposes an ethical approach to the h

53、ealth</p><p>　　“It can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system.”</p><p>　　Vision Zero is said to be a long-term goa

54、l for the design and functioning of the road transport system. What is important is to realise that the Vision Zero approach will alter the aim of the work on road traffic safety; i.e., from attempting to reduce the numb

55、er of accidents to the formulation of an explicit goal: to eliminate the risk of chronic health impairment caused by a traffic accident. This new approach will also alter the question from “what can we do?” to “what must

56、 we do?”</p><p>　　Vision Zero presumes a new division of responsibility for road traffic safety within the road transport system. The responsibility for road traffic safety should be introduced along the fol

57、lowing lines.</p><p>　　1. The designers of the system are always ultimately responsible for the design, operations and use of the road transport system and are thereby responsible for the level of safety wit

58、hin the entire system.</p><p>　　2. Road users are responsible for following the rules for using the road transport system set by the system designers.</p><p>　　3. If road users fail to obey thes

59、e rules due to a lack of knowledge, acceptance or ability, or if injuries do occur, the system designers are required to take the necessary further steps to counteract people being killed and seriously injured.</p>

60、<p>　　Taking the Vision Zero approach means that paying attention to human life and health is an absolute requirement in the design and functioning of the road transport system. This implies that road traffic safe

61、ty issues, in similarity to environmental issues, must be clearly integrated in all the processes that affect road traffic safety in the road transport system and be based on the following: </p><p>　　“The le

62、vel of violence that the human body can tolerate without being killed or seriously injured shall be the basic parameter in the design of the road transport system.”</p><p>　　It is upon this principle that th

63、e future society with safe road traffic can develop: through designing and constructing roads, vehicles and transport services so that the level of violence that can be tolerated by the human being is not exceeded; and t

64、hrough the effective contribution of different support systems such as rules and regulations, education, information, surveillance, rescue services, care and rehabilitation. With this as the basis, there will be a positi

65、ve demand for new and effec</p><p>　　“It is true, that 95% of all crashes or collisions depend on human error, but according to Vision Zero philosophy, 95% of the solutions are in changing roads, streets or

66、vehicles.”Some simple examples follow:</p><p>　　(1) Drivers in Sweden used to have a 92% seat-belt wearing rate. Good but not good enough. EuroNCaP1 established a protocol for seat-belt reminders a couple of

67、 years ago having the effect that 70% of new cars sold in Sweden 2005 had seat-belt reminders. The drivers of these cars have a seat-belt wearing rate of 99%. Hence, the problem of seat-belt wearing will gradually be sol

68、ved at a very low cost.</p><p>　　(2) Alcohol: All over the world alcohol and traffic is a big problem, even if improvements can be made with strict legislation and enforcement. By demonstrating a demand for

69、safe transport primarily by professional transporters a demand for “proven sober” transports has risen. In Sweden about 50% of all school buses have alcohol interlocks (a device that checks if the driver is sober). A new

70、 generation of Alco locks are coming on the market (at least four competitors in Europe/USA) reducing pric</p><p>　　In this way a car that reminds you to use your seat-belt, and checks your breath for alcoho

71、l, or otherwise checks your performance, and assists you to be a better, safer driver. Different aspects of the Vision Zero philosophy can be found in (Tingvall et al., 1996, 1997; Tingvall, 1998, 2007; Belin et al., 199

72、7).</p><p>　　3. Traditional road design philosophy</p><p>　　The traditional road-oriented safety philosophy has as its starting point the ‘‘a(chǎn)ccident”. Accident statistics are normally based on p

73、olice reports made up on traffic accidents known to the police. These statistics have been used by road authorities world-wide for describing and analysing the road safety problem associated with roads and road design. I

74、t is important to notice that the conceptsof traffic accidents and (bad) road safety are not synonymous. Many accidents could be an indicator of (</p><p>　　Accident analysis shows typically that 90–95% of al

75、l accidents are caused by road users. Society’s most fundamental response to accident prevention has been rules and regulations for road user behaviour. The purpose of traffic legislation is mainly to simplify the tasks

76、for road users, making the risk of accident lower. In many cases this works as intended. But if focus is shifted to the effect of the traffic regulation on health loss, the pattern is less clear. Examples could be, for i

77、nstance, </p><p>　　When it comes to road- and street design the dominant safety strategy overall has been to increase space for drivers and vehicles. That is, wider lanes, wider roads, straighter roads, larg

78、er crossings etc. The reasoning behind this is straightforward and logical; if drivers run off the road, make the road a little bit wider so there is room for manoeuvring the vehicle back into the lane and keeping the ve

79、hicle on the road; if drivers run off the road in bends, try making the road a little bit st</p><p>　　This safety philosophy to build wide, straight roads and streets is one of the main contributions to the

80、present global road safety crisis. The result is an increase, by one or two factors of 10, in the risks of severe personal injury or fatality, compared to the Vision Zero design philosophy described later in this paper.

81、No other design parameter has an impact of this magnitude. As an example Swedish 2-lane highways with a speed limit of 110 km/h had one of the most severe injury pattern recor</p><p>　　A note must be made on

82、 motorisation and its effect on overall safety in a country. Sweden has approximately 0.5 cars/inhabitant whereas China is only in its beginning as a motorised country with 0.04 cars/inhabitant. The World Bank has noted

83、that the number of persons killed in a country turns from an increasing trend to a decreasing trend when the GNP/capita reaches approximately 8000 US$ (Kopits and Kropper, 2003). A hypothesis based on this data could be

84、that the change in composition of traf</p><p>　　4. Design principles in Vision Zero</p><p>　　The human tolerance for biomechanical forces is in this perspective the starting point for the design

85、 of a safe traffic system. This tolerance is a given factor – it cannot be affected to any significant extent. For instance if cars hits pedestrians at 25–30 km/h most of them survive. However, if the cars instead do 50

86、km/h, most pedestrians will die (Fig. 2).</p><p>　　The trick from an engineering point of view is to design and construct a traffic system where this human tolerance is not exceeded. Whereas the general stra

87、tegy for safe road design from the accident perspective was to increase space for drivers and vehicles, the corresponding strategy from a Vision Zero perspective is to manage kinetic energy in crashes and collisions. It

88、is kinetic energy that kills and injures the road user – not the accident. By managing the crash in terms of the energy that</p><p>　　The management of kinetic energy in crashes and collisions can be broken

89、down to the following principle for road and street design; “Integration and Separation”: kinetic energy is managed by integrating compatible traffic elements and by separating incompatible ones. Here are some boundary v

90、alues:</p><p>　　1. Vulnerable road users should not be exposed to motorised vehicles at speeds exceeding 30 km/h.</p><p>　　2. If 1. cannot be satisfied then separate or reduce the vehicle speed

91、to 30 km/h.</p><p>　　3. Car occupants should not be exposed to other motorised vehicles at speeds exceeding 50 km/h in crossings.</p><p>　　4. If 3. cannot be satisfied then separate, or reduce t

92、he angle, or reduce the speed to 50 km/h.</p><p>　　5. Car occupants should not be exposed to oncoming traffic (other vehicles of approximately same weight) at speeds exceeding 70 km/h or 50 km/h if oncoming

93、vehicles are of considerably different weight (Fig. 3).</p><p>　　6. If 5. cannot be satisfied then separate, homogenise weights or reduce speeds to 70 (50) km/h.</p><p>　　7. Car occupants should

94、 not be exposed to the road side at speeds exceeding 70 km/h, or 50 km/h if the road side contains trees or other narrow objects (Fig. 4).</p><p>　　8. If 7. cannot be satisfied separate or reduce speed to 70

95、 (50) km/h.</p><p>　　Fig. 1. A road (Highway 204, China), where space is thought to be the safety feature resulting in more than 1 killed/km/year.</p><p>　　Fig. 2. The probability of pedestrian

96、fatality as a function of impact speed (Anderson et al., 1997).</p><p>　　Fig. 3. A redesigned rural road in Sweden with 2 + 1 lanes and mid-barrier, resulting in a reduction of fatalities by 80–90%.</p>